For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument, pursuant to CPL §§ 30.30 (1)(b) and 170.30 (1)(e), on the grounds that the People filed, but purportedly did not timely serve, a supporting deposition on the Defense before expiration of the 90-day speedy trial period is denied.

Defendant was arrested and arraigned on July 30, 2024, on charges of (i) Menacing in the Second Degree (PL § 120.14 [1]), (ii) Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree (PL § 265.1 [2]), (iii) Menacing in the Third Degree (PL § 120.15), and (iv) Harassment in the Second Degree (PL § 240.26 [1]). He was released on his own recognizance with the consent of the People following arraignment.

As relevant to this motion, the People filed their supporting deposition with the Court via the Electronic Document Delivery System ("EDDS") on October 24, 2024, the 86th day following arraignment. On October 27, 2024, the 89th day following arraignment, the People sent two emails to Defense Counsel, the first containing a link to a OneDrive folder containing discovery materials, and the second attaching the People's Certificate of Compliance ("COC") and Statement of Readiness ("SOR"). On October 29, 2024, the 91st day following arraignment, the parties appeared before the Court, and Defense Counsel confirmed receipt of the COC and SOR but indicated they were not served with the supporting deposition. The Court informed Defendant that it was filed via EDDS on October 24, 2024, and the Court then provided a copy to Defense. Defendant was arraigned on the information. The case was adjourned to November 21, 2024, for a discovery conference. On November 20, 2024, Defense filed the instant motion.

Defendant argues that because the People did not timely serve the supporting deposition on Defense Counsel before the 90th day and a copy of same was provided to Defendant only on the 91st day, the case must be dismissed, citing CPL §§ 30.30 (1)(b) and 170.30 (1)(e). The [*2]People counter that Defendant was served with the supporting deposition because it was part of the OneDrive folder that was shared with Defense on October 27, 2024, and that Defense Counsel acknowledged receipt of the OneDrive link (Ames Affirm. at 5; Exs. 1, 5, and 8). On reply, Defendant maintains that the People cannot show that the supporting deposition was actually in the OneDrive folder when it was shared, and that the screenshot provided by the People as proof only shows when the file was created or changed, but does not show if the supporting deposition was included when the OneDrive folder was shared on October 27, 2024 (Chung Reply Mem. at 4). Defendant further argues that even if the People had included the supporting deposition with the discovery materials shared via OneDrive on October 27, 2024, Defense Counsel notified the People the very next day that the materials were inaccessible, that the People then incorrectly claimed they had already shared it with Defense's discovery team, and, as such, the People made insufficient efforts to provide notice and indicate to Defense Counsel that the supporting deposition had been filed (Chung Mem. at 10-11).

A misdemeanor complaint "may not serve as the basis for a prosecution unless the accused expressly waives the right to be prosecuted by a misdemeanor information" (People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225. 228 [2009], citing CPL §§ 100.10 [4] and 170.65 [1], [3]). Unless prosecution by information is expressly waived, the misdemeanor complaint must be "replaced by an information, and the defendant must be arraigned thereon," and if the "misdemeanor complaint is supplemented by a supporting deposition such misdemeanor complaint is deemed to have been converted to and to constitute a replacing information" (CPL § 170.65 [1]).

Here, it is not disputed that the People filed their supporting deposition with the Court via EDDS on October 24, 2024, which falls within the ninety-day speedy trial timeframe. This converted the misdemeanor complaint within the applicable statutory timeframe. CPL § 100.20 is silent as to any requirement of service of a supporting deposition (compare CPL § 100.20 [supporting deposition accompanying or filed in connection with .] with CPL § 100.25 [2] [upon a timely request, a defendant charged by simplified information is entitled to have a supporting deposition filed with the court and served upon defendant]; see also People v Fernandez, 20 NY3d 44, 50 [2012] [stating defendant may not be prosecuted unless prosecution by information is waived or unless a supporting deposition is filed]). Similar to a SOR, what is critical with a supporting deposition is timely filing with the court and prompt notice to defendant thereafter (see People v McClure, 80 Misc 3d 238, 241 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2023] [finding that the "filing of the statement [of readiness], not service, that is critical, and all that is required is 'prompt' notice to defense counsel"] [citing People v Kendzia, 64 NY2d 331 [1985]]; People v Miller, 79 Misc 3d 1032 [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2023]). Here, the People assert that they timely shared the supporting deposition via OneDrive on October 27th, 2024, and Defendant was provided with a copy in court on October 29, 2024, all just days after the supporting deposition was filed via EDDS on October 24, 2024. Inasmuch as Defendant contends that the People cannot prove that the supporting deposition was in the OneDrive folder when it was shared with counsel, the People also separately served Defense Counsel with the COC and SOR by email dated October 27, 2024, which put Defendant on notice that the complaint was converted to an information (see generally People v Jeter, 83 Misc 3d 1204[A] [Crim Ct, Bronx County 2024]). Inasmuch as Defendant also argues that the People cannot prove that they shared the supporting deposition via OneDrive, the People submit an affirmation that this document was included in the OneDrive folder. The Court finds this sufficient under the circumstances, [*3]particularly given that the supporting deposition was also physically shared in court shortly thereafter. Any technical difficulties on the part of Defense Counsel do not change the fact that the documents were timely shared with Defendant.

Based on the foregoing, 89 days are chargeable to the People (i.e., July 30 to October 27, 2024).

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to dismiss the accusatory instrument pursuant to CPL §§ 30.30 (1)(b) and 170.30 (1)(e) is denied.